radi0j0hn wrote:So if "real" heavy duty batteries are so friggin' great, why are their may more sales of alkalines? Why do some camera makers INSIST on alkalines? Gotta remember the audience here. Most are not running little toy trucks and other low drain devices

The answer is simple.

1) Sales are heavily influenced by advertising. When was the last time you saw any advertising for heavy duty or zinc carbon batteries? A lot of young people don't even know they exist. And many places don't even stock them.

2) As you can see the the Energizer chart, alkalines usually last only a bit more than 2x as much as heavy duties (zinc chloride). Yet many places charge 3-4x as much for alkalines. That generally means higher profit for alkalines since the manufacturing cost is not 3-4x higher. So of course there'll be a push to promote and sell them.

3) For many applications, it's simply more convenient to have a longer lasting battery, regardless of value. Two examples are wall clocks and smoke detectors. People simply don't like have to reach the ceiling or high wall to change change batteries. That doesn't mean that heavy duties aren't a better value.

4) Cameras do not insists on alkalines. In fact, most recommend NiMH or lithium because they have a better discharge profile. As for older cameras recommending alkalines over heavy duty batteries, the reason is simple: They last longer. Do you think camera companies like having their customers complain about changing batteries frequently? Indeed, one of the major criteria used in reviews is battery life. Fewer battery changes make their camera look good -- especially since it doesn't cost them anything to insist on alkalines. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Bought these in last woot-off. Not good in high drain devices like digital cameras (died after 12 picts) but work fine for clocks, remotes, small led flash-lights, and other low drain household devices.

radi0j0hn wrote:So if "real" heavy duty batteries are so friggin' great, why are their may more sales of alkalines? Why do some camera makers INSIST on alkalines? Gotta remember the audience here. Most are not running little toy trucks and other low drain devices

What are you talking about??? Did you look at the table based on Energizer's data? First, your statement is the exact opposite of what the data shows. The fact that you're NOT "running little toy trucks" is exactly why heavy duties are a better value. Alkalines only outlasts them significantly (about 4x) in MOTORIZED application, i.e. little toy trucks. In most solid state applications, alkalines outlasts heavy duties by only little over 2x. Yet name brand alkalines usually cost 3-4x as much.

FYI, motors are NOT low drain devices. And, other than digital cameras (and stun guns) most battery operated electronic devices are not high drain.

Please re-read my post and look the Energizer chart again. The results are clear. Or are you disputing the data or my analysis?

sdc100 wrote:The answer is simple

You might need to edit paragraph 2 for clarity please

vintagesales87 wrote:Bought these last time they were for sale. They're perfect if your planning to use them in a sock to beat your cellmate. I'd recommend a different battery though if your going to use them in electrical devices.

bwhahahahaha

TT

sdc100 wrote:The answer is simple.

1) Sales are heavily influenced by advertising. When was the last time you saw any advertising for heavy duty or sinc carbon batteries? A lot of young people don't even know they exist. And many places don't even stock them.

2) As you can see the the Energizer chart, alkalines usually last only a bit more than 2x as much as alkalines. Yet many places charge 3-4 as much for alkalines. Guess what -- that means higher profit or alkalines. So of course there'll be a push to promote and sell them.

3) For many applications, it's simply more convenient to have a longer lasting battery, regardless of value. Two examples are wall clocks and smoke detectors. People simply don't like have to reach the ceiling or high wall to change change batteries. That doesn't mean that heavy duties aren't a better value.

4) Cameras do not insists on alkalines. In fact, most recommend NiMH or lithium because they have a better discharge profile. As for older cameras recommending alkalines over heavy duty batteries, the reason is simple: THEY LAST LONGER. Do you think camera companies like having their customers complain about changing batteries frequently? Indeed, one of the major criteria used in reviews is battery life. Fewer battery changes make their camera look good -- especially since it doesn't cost them anything to insist on alkalines. Is that so hard to understand? I would have thought it to be obvious.

One other thought. Is it possible that the main customer for these isn't necessarily American? In other words, for an audience that can't afford alkaline batteries?

Why does it say 1 20-Pack Fuji Extra Long Life Heavy-Duty Batteries: AAA when you go to place the order????????????

DO NOT BUY! I bought these the last time Woot had them up, and they are terrible.

Apparently not all batteries are the same. The AA are a little bit shorter and won't work in devices that do not have a good spring to complete the connections. Plus they do not have near the power stored as cheap off brand batteries from anywhere else.

DO NOT BUY!

Yeah no kidding they don't last for hardly 10 minutes in Wiimotes. These batteries suck, not even worth the cheap price!

So, $10.99 for a pack of batteries that run out of charge in minutes?? How is this remotely worthy of a Woot? I can get a better buy on Energizers at Costco.

Ringo4422 wrote:The ignorance is that some people don't realize that MOST of the devices they use AA cells in will not perform well at all with ANY so-called Heavy Duty (zinc/carbon circa 1920's technology). They will only work satisfactorily on remote controls and battery clocks. That's it! Put them in a digital camera, you might get 1 photo, that is if it stays powered on at all.

Wrong. What you're claiming simply doesn't match the data. Did you look at the table I provided? In fact, go to Energizer's website and look at the discharge graphs for zinc carbon )your so-called 1920's technology") vs zinc chloride (aka "heavy duty"). They are SIGNIFICANTLY different. [yel=http://www.woot.com/Forums/ViewPost.aspx?PostID=4883137]I even provided a link to the PDF.[/url] The discharge slope for zinc carbons is much steeper. In other words, heavy duty batteries have a sigficantly longer usable life -- so I'm not sure why you are lumping the zinc carbon as if they are identical.

If you are correct, then Energizer's data is wrong. It clearly shows that heavy duty batteries have favorable performance as compared to alkalines. As I point out, alkalines outlasts heavy duty (zinc chloride) by a bit over 2x while usually costing 3-4 as much. So you dismissive claim of them only performing satisfactorily in remotes and clocks is clearly wrong.

It's really kind of embarrassing that detractors constantly use digital cameras for their argument when digital cameras are atypical. Most solid state electronic devices resemble a radio more than a camera, and Energizer's data show they do do well in radios. There reliance on a camera for your argument is especially silly because most digital cameras are rechargeable, and even those that are not recommend NiMHs over alkalines.

I'm always willing to learn so if you have data and studies proving your claims. I'd love to see it.

Ringo4422 wrote:Ummm... no they are not. Open one and look for yourself. I think you are confusing that 9v batteries are 6 AAA cells inside the case.

Both the AA and AAA have the same 900 Mah rating so they both have the exact same amount of energy producing chemicals inside.

cmckennaiv wrote:I yearn for the day when Woot sells rechargeable batteries. They will get so much of my money.

They've sold rechargeables several times so in the past. For example, here.

And they sell portable rechargeable battery packs A LOT. They just had one last week.

But if you want low self-discharge batteries, go to Shnoop. They've never had Eneloops, but I bought some great LSD Duracells for about 60% the price of Eneloops and word is that they're identical in every way.

Literally the worst batteries I've ever used. Almost comical how short their life span is. $6 is cheap, but still.

Darksoul13 wrote:? Not rechargeable ?

I got this the last time it showed up (I think), and while the value is pretty amazing, I use them mainly for wireless xbox controllers and they last about 50-66% as long as normal duracell or energizer batteries. Plus I feel anti-green with an entire box of batteries in my closet. Although, I did consider getting a small "self pleasuring device" (really woot, the v-word is censored) and a full 3 woot order of these for a friend as a gag gift. Would probably be priceless reaction.

eyeglass1 wrote:Seriously, a company should at least ATTEMPT to help the world by not selling crap, low-life throw away batteries. I don't mind paying the extra and not being lazy: ONLY USE RECHARGEABLES, please.

This has been argued and answered in the past. Your protest is nonsensical because Woot is a liquidator. That means that the batteries were already manufactured, and whether Woot sells them or not, the "damage" has been done. In fact, not selling them would be more damaging because it means that these batteries would be thrown away without being used. And those who would have bought them had to buy other batteries.

Woot's decision to sell them also has no bearing on whether the company will manufacture more because they are a liquidator. That means that they likely did not buy directly from the manufacturer. And Woot likely doesn't have a running order to replace this stock once they're gone. In other words, don't accuse Woot of being environmentally irresponsible, or otherwise encouraging others to be irresponsible.

sdc100 wrote:I'm always willing to learn so if you have data and studies proving your claims. I'd love to see it.

Sounds like you really got it bad for these heavy-duty batteries. You're trying very hard to defend them.

However, the "detractors" on here are right. Every single device (not just cameras) that I've put heavy duty batteries in have sucked them dry in a very short order. I've got kids and I've got a ton of battery operated devices. So frankly, why would someone need to provide some official study with an elaborate data analysis on these things? The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming, both from my own experience as well as others.

I've had remote batteries last for years. I certainly wouldn't buy a stash of crap batteries just so I could have the pleasure of replacing them more often.

These Are Old Fashioned CheapAzz batteries.
The kind that are not being made or sold in most civilized countries.
The name "heavy duty" is just a marketing label, to distinguish them from the regular old fashioned carbon/acid batteries.
There are two reasons to buy these- they are cheap, and they have a long shelf life. Buy a pack and stick it in your bugout/ emergency bag.

sdc100 wrote:
...
It's really kind of embarrassing that detractors constantly use digital cameras for their argument when digital cameras are atypical. Most solid state electronic devices resemble a radio more than a camera, and Energizer's data show they do do well in radios. There reliance on a camera for your argument is especially silly because most digital cameras are rechargeable, and even those that are not recommend NiMHs over alkalines.
...

Why would digital camera be atypical?? Both my point-and-shoot and my DSLR use AA batteries! Although I run them on rechargeables now, I always keep a spare set of alkalines in the bag. Your example of heavy-duty use for MP3 players and radios sound stranger - how many iPods, Sansas, etc run on AAs?!

Regarding cost-effectiveness, let's be honest - the biggest difference in price for batteries comes from whether you buy in bulk or small sets. For most people, when you buy a bulk package, you are gonna want to use those for all your applications. So the most versatile battery wins it! Would you rather have a car in which you have to put gas twice as often and that you can use only in certain conditions, even if the gas price is the same?...

You might be right in general regarding Heavy-Duty batteries (I don't know - that document that you cited is from 2001), but I don't quite grasp your obsession with them.

I just hope people don't mistake you defending heavy-duty batteries' merits, to mean those Woot batteries are worth buying.

Aaahaha.. again?! Couldn't return them.. huh Woot!?

whatsamattaU wrote:One other thought. Is it possible that the main customer for these isn't necessarily American? In other words, for an audience that can't afford alkaline batteries?

Umm, it's the opposite. Most Euro-based civilized countries don't allow these kind to be sold. Amerika is one of the few, because, well, even crooks are allowed to make money off the 99 here!

sdc100 wrote:This has been argued and answered in the past. Your protest is nonsensical because Woot is a liquidator. That means that the batteries were already manufactured, and whether Woot sells them or not, the "damage" has been done. In fact, not selling them would be more damaging because it means that these batteries would be thrown away without being used. And those who would have bought them had to buy other batteries.

Woot's decision to sell them also has no bearing on whether the company will manufacture more because they are a liquidator. That means that they likely did not buy directly from the manufacturer. And Woot likely doesn't have a running order to replace this stock once they're gone. In other words, don't accuse Woot of being environmentally irresponsible, or otherwise encouraging others to be irresponsible.

ng1404 wrote:
Don't use CZn/ZnCl in anything that requires bursts of power:
- wireless (electromagnetic not infrared) transmission devices: game-console/toy/alarm controller, temperature sensor, First Alert Smoke Alarm with OneLink, mouse (especially those that uses 1 AA cell)

This isn't true. I've used heavy duty (zinc chloride) batteries in wireless transmission devices (a Sharper Image weather forecaster that periodically transmits data from my PC to the display), temperature sensors (I have 4 of them, including one in the fridge. Alkalines do poorly in the cold), and First Alert with OneLink (yes, I do test the alarm as well as the link). Heavy duty batteries do just fine. They may not last as long as alkalines or lithiums, but to warn against their use is an exaggeration. Except for the First Alert, the other devices are still using heavy duties. I switched the First Alert to lithium because I don't like climbing ladders and lithium will last the life of the detector (about6-8 years).

Note that I am talking about zinc chloride (heavy duty) batteries and not zinc carbon. The two differ significantly in their discharge profile and discharge curves. Please see the data I used from Energizer.

sdc100 wrote:This has been argued and answered in the past. Your protest is nonsensical because Woot is a liquidator. That means that the batteries were already manufactured, and whether Woot sells them or not, the "damage" has been done. In fact, not selling them would be more damaging because it means that these batteries would be thrown away without being used. And those who would have bought them had to buy other batteries.

Woot's decision to sell them also has no bearing on whether the company will manufacture more because they are a liquidator. That means that they likely did not buy directly from the manufacturer. And Woot likely doesn't have a running order to replace this stock once they're gone. In other words, don't accuse Woot of being environmentally irresponsible, or otherwise encouraging others to be irresponsible.

Now YOU are pushing your SPECULATIONS!!
A lot of "likely"s and "probably"s that you have no way of knowing unless you work for woot.

I can understand you defending heavy-duty batteries if you like them so much. But to defend Woot selling crap on their customers is ridiculous. If Woot made the bad decision to take on this lot of junk batteries, that doesn't mean it's a good business practice to try to offload them on unsuspecting customers.

Spend gas and energy to transport those just so that they can end up in the trash somewhere else? - sure, that makes sense ecologically!

Might as well go through a battery recycling bin for some partially used ones that people throw - could be even more cost-effective than these.

Gidgaf wrote:Umm, it's the opposite. Most Euro-based civilized countries don't allow these kind to be sold. Amerika is one of the few, because, well, even crooks are allowed to make money off the 99 here!

Unless wikipedia's wrong (and wikipedia's never wrong??),
"Zinc–carbon batteries account for only 6% of all primary battery sales in Japan and only 7% of all types of batteries sold in Switzerland. In the UK 20% of all portable batteries sold are zinc–carbon and in the EU 30%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc%E2%80%93carbon_battery#The_zinc_chloride_cell

Manufactuers seem to be in China/related (surprised?):
http://www.globalsources.com/manufacturers/Zinc-Chloride-Battery.html



Oh, what the heck, I'm drawn in anyway:

Product website: yes, they are STILL selling these
http://www.fujinovelbatteries.com/web/heavy_duty.php

Why Radio Shack is mostly out of the carbon-zinc battery business, straight from the customer support site (they still sell a 12 volt lantern battery):
http://support.radioshack.com/support_tutorials/batteries/bt-zicl-main.htm

and read up at earth 911:

http://earth911.com/recycling/hazardous/single-use-batteries/carbon-zinc-zinc-chloride-batteries/

and Walmart (surprise) has a full line of zinc chloride batteries:
http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=zinc+chloride&ic=16_0&Find=Find&search_constraint=3944

I'm going to stake middle ground in this (and see if I can contribute to get the number of comments to >602 comments like last time). I'm unlikely to buy this (but I'll see if the leak frogs still work (when I get home) with their original batteries--that would be the only reason for me to buy these), and I agree that sometimes customer experience trumps research (but realize sdc100 IS a medical researcher). This many negative comments can't be wrong. I've personally not had a zinc-carbon battery leak, but I agree it's nowhere near an alkaline's length of life.

However, I can see where sdc100 is coming from with some of his comments (like my correction to gidgaf above). In other words, there are plenty of reasons to shoot this woot deal down, but (I think) he's basically saying don't make things up/use half-truths in slamming these batteries. There's plenty of valid reasons to not buy these that are legitimate.

Every time I see the miniature picture of batteries in my Woot Daily Digest Email, without fail, I think they're poker chips.

Cheaper than peanut M&M's!!

My wireless-connected smoke detectors do,in fsct, take AA batteries. THESE SHOULD NOT BE USED IN SMOKE DETECTORS.

DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BUY THESE BATTERYS.....all you get stuck with are batteries that die after 10 minutes of use and then you are stuck with a whole bunch of useless battery's

niks wrote:Why would digital camera be atypical?? Both my point-and-shoot and my DSLR use AA batteries! Although I run them on rechargeables now, I always keep a spare set of alkalines in the bag. Your example of heavy-duty use for MP3 players and radios sound stranger - how many iPods, Sansas, etc run on AAs?!

Regarding cost-effectiveness, let's be honest - the biggest difference in price for batteries comes from whether you buy in bulk or small sets. For most people, when you buy a bulk package, you are gonna want to use those for all your applications. So the most versatile battery wins it! Would you rather have a car in which you have to put gas twice as often and that you can use only in certain conditions, even if the gas price is the same?...

You might be right in general regarding Heavy-Duty batteries (I don't know - that document that you cited is from 2001), but I don't quite grasp your obsession with them.

I just hope people don't mistake you defending heavy-duty batteries' merits, to mean those Woot batteries are worth buying.

1) Digital cameras have an atypical discharge profile. Almost no other commonly used electronic device matches it. So to use it to warn others not to buy zinc chloride batteries is misleading. More common household uses are flashlights, clocks, remotes, radios, thermometers, timers, doorbells, etc -- none of which match the load profile of a camera. At worst, detractors should specify that heavy duties are not for cameras, which I've repeatedly said myself.

2) How many radios use batteries? Virtually all that I've seen. I'm not sure where you saw me mention MP3 players.

3) I disagree with the "most versatile wins" approach. I customize my batteries to the application. Lithiums for my smoke detector, alkalines for motorized and emergency devices , heavy duties for some low/moderate devices. And rechargeables where applicable.

Nowhere did I say that alkalines are not more convenient, but to call heavy duties useless is ignorant. Furthermore, if the versatility and convenience argument is true, then most devices should use lithiums -- long shelf life, longer use life, lighter (floats in water), better cold temperature profile, great performance in cameras, etc. But most people don't because of cost so to discount the cost/performance benefits of heavy duties is inconsistent.

3) If you don't like my source, find me a better or more current one. As a researcher by trade, I'd be grateful. As far I know, no major advances have been made in heavy duty (zinc chloride) or alkaline batteries since 2001, and the price ratiob (3-4x) is based on current experience. So unless you can invalidate my data, it stands as valid.

4) Obssession with them? As a researcher and former professor (Medical Physics), I'm obsessed with knowledge. I also spent 10 years as a volunteer consumer educator at a senior center. As you can see from my Quality Post rating, I don't just "obsessed" with batteries, but about sharing information. And if I'm wrong, I'd like to know it.

5) I have REPEATEDLY said that these are not real heavy duty (zinc chloride) batteries so if people make that mistake, it's their fault. In fact, the first message I posted on the matter stated this and it is highlighted as a Quality Post. And that is exactly my peeve -- bashing these batteries is valid, but too many people are discussing these as if zinc carbon and zinc chloride batteries are the same.

A lot of people arguing about batteries. Ah, the internet.

toxictom wrote:DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BUY THESE BATTERYS.....all you get stuck with are batteries that die after 10 minutes of use and then you are stuck with a whole bunch of useless battery's

You are 100% correct, these are a HUGE waste of your money! Keep your money and buy better batteries...

You know you're a college student when you see this picture and assume that these batteries are all keystone lights. .

Do people still buy these things? I thought rechargable batteries have come a long way. There are now 1.6V AA rechargable batteries (search for PowerGenix on amazon). In my experience, they worked very well. Wooters, please dont buy these disposable batteries. They will just end up in landfills for next thousands of years.

I keep reading comments stating figures such as '1/3' or '1/5' the operation time of 'standard alkaline'. These are very precise statements; may I ask if even moderately precise measurement was made, if any at all, to determine this?

A 'standard alkaline' battery can be expected to have about 1800 mAh and these are rated for 900. This indicates that these ought to have half the life expectancy. Depending on how many are purchased, it's going to cost as little as about 26 cents for two batteries to get the energy of a 'standard alkaline' at 45 to 50 cents for one battery. I'm still seeing about a 50 percent savings.

I see people complaining about short life in video-game controllers and digital cameras. Well, video-game controllers vibrate, and this is going to use quite some energy; an entire controller is being shaken, not say, the tiny speakers in a pair of headphones! And cameras require high voltage, especially for the flash; even 'standard alkaline' do not last long here! And once removed from such devices, these batteries are far from dead, and still capable of being used in certain applications.

So, again, I'm curious about the trials that people complaining actually put these batteries through. If they're defective, then we need to know; but if the figures being offered are casual or exaggerated guesses being angrily tossed about, then it is of little help.

Has anyone used these in LED lights, such as for headlamps or bicycle head and tail lights? Or perhaps in clocks or portable music players? Experiences regarding these uses should actually be helpful; how well they performed in your cordless jackhammer is not!

therealjrn wrote:You might need to edit paragraph 2 for clarity please

*blush*
Thanks ... I bet my posts are loaded with typos since I'm working on other projects at the same time. In fact, I've found some typos that reversed the meaning of my posts.

These are a good source of inanimate carbon rods...

vladistov wrote:I keep reading comments stating figures such as '1/3' or '1/5' the operation time of 'standard alkaline'. These are very precise statements; may I ask if even moderately precise measurement was made, if any at all, to determine this?

A 'standard alkaline' battery can be expected to have about 1800 mAh and these are rated for 900. This indicates that these ought to have half the life expectancy. Depending on how many are purchased, it's going to cost as little as about 26 cents for two batteries to get the energy of a 'standard alkaline' at 45 to 50 cents for one battery. I'm still seeing about a 50 percent savings.

I see people complaining about short life in video-game controllers and digital cameras. Well, video-game controllers vibrate; this is going to use quite some energy; an entire controller is being shaken, not say, the tiny speakers in a pair of headphones! And cameras require high voltage, especially for the flash; even 'standard alkaline' do not last long here! And once removed from such devices, these batteries are far from dead, and still capable of being used in certain applications.

So, again, I'm curious about the trials that people complaining actually put these batteries through. If they're defective, then we need to know; but if the figures being offered are casual or exaggerated guesses being angrily tossed about, then it is of little help.

Has anyone used these in LED lights, such as for headlamps or bicycle head and tail lights? Or perhaps in clocks or portable music players? Experiences regarding these uses should actually be helpful; how well they performed in your cordless jackhammer are not!

There seems to be several problems:
1) Despite the title, these batteries are not Heavy Duty (zinc chloride) but an older less capacious type, zinc carbon. This was verified by another Wooter by contacting Fuji. So some people have have expected better battery life.
2) There seems to be storage and quality control issues. Many people report that there were many dead batteries upon arrival.
3) Many people are not using these batteries for their intended purposes. For example, digital cameras are often mentioned. No one ever claimed that zinc chloride or zinc carbon batteries were appropriate for that. Even alkalines don't perform well in such a high drain device.

These are awful. They run out of power quickly and the - of the battery which usually has a slightly raised area is completely flat. Any device that doesn't have a coil or such to reach the - end won't work. I was very disappointed.

901Memphis wrote:I get Meijer brand alkalines or rayovacs in 48 packs or so and pay only about .25 cents per battery.

Batteries for 1/4 of a penny? That's an amazing deal. So instead of the piddling 60 batteries Woot is offering today for six bucks, we could go to Meijer and get 2400 batteries for the same price.

I hope they have a long shelf life.